1989/08/16 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

August 16,1989 317 Bob Undies, Planning @e Department, said that procedural questions need to be addressed^prior to the actual hearing. and He stat ed Councils needs nto addressts edwhetherended they a willl allow gam suss es after the time for appeal hes closed. n amentlment He also stated Council needed to consider the scope of the appeal and the relief requested by the appellants. He stated the purpose of establishing time limits on the submittal of an appeal is to provide a Pair opportunity to review the issues of the appeal by all parties. It is the discretion of the Council whether to accept the amendment to the appeal. Or. Candies also said that a revision has been made in the original DNS to conform to therequest of the applicant to change Condition 5 from 5 foot solid wood fence surrounding the buffer area to allow 6 foot high chain link fence. The City has had discussions with the wetland expert and the Department of Fisheries, who have stated that the Pour foot high chain link Pence would be adequate to provide a positive barrier between the development and the North ';' reek buffer. Bruce sCity Attorney, commented that the courts will allow amendments if they are in the interest of justice end show no prejudice. It is the decision of Council whether to accept the amendment containing additional issues,which was received after the appeal time limit elapsed. Robert York, the appellant, stated they w to the process and were just trying to establish all the reasons endissues which will adversely effect the neighborhood. Cou meilmembe Gipson said he felt a process hat been esteilithed a tomaintain isten , the issues in the amendment should not be allowed to he under consideration. Councilmember Marrow declared that res o able opportunity hould ba alien the sppellente to p[ovitle eli sthe issues that effect the eighborhood. Reid Shockey, Planning Consultant representing the applicant, explained that his client would be prepared to address all the issues, if council determines to a m accept the amended appeal issues. They do not want a continuance of the hearing. He pointed out that they have been trying to contact the appellants to mitigate end discuss the issues, but the appellants stated they were not to talk to the applicant at the advice of their attorney. • Moved by Councilmember Overstreet, seconded by Councilmember Morrow to accept the amendment of the appeal of the Final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (SEPA 13-89) to insure clarification on all the issues of the appeal. Roll was called with alo l councllmembe rs voting yes except Councilmembers Gipson,L ngu and Pope who ted no. Notion carried.